Five minute short shot with HVX200

[robweiner]

Last week I helped out an SF Bay Area crew competing in the final round of the 48 Hour Film Project.

The film is posted at the link below. Warning--BIG FILES

http://snagle.net/

[thefilmaddict]

Wow. That's quite an accomplishment. The crew must have worked very fast (like a well oiled machine). I'm impressed. Making anything in 48 hours takes a lot of hard work and know how. Nice job guys!

Technical comments/questions:

1. I watched the Quicktime version and it looked pretty poor. I then watched the Windows Media Version and it looked much better (although my computer did have trouble playing it a few times). I wonder why?

2. There's been a lot of talk about noise with this camera. Both files that I watched were pretty noisy (even blocky at times). I noticed the noise in the blacks the most. Perhaps this is because the files have been compressed greatly for the web? My main question is, when you viewed this short on a HD TV (in its full resolution), did it look noisy in the blacks? Many people have suggested that the noise would go away with proper lighting. It is quite obvious that the footage was lit. Others have stated that the noise makes the footage look more like film. The noise I see in these files is not pleasing.

NOTE: I sometimes like dramatic lighting and although I use a bright key light and little or no fill in this sort of situation, I like much of the background to fall off and turn into black (or shadow). Will this camera let me do this without gaining a ton of noise? What camera settings did the camera operator use? With the cameras that I've used in the past, noise is only introduced when the image is underexposed and you have to open up the iris all the way or turn on the gain. Once I introduce pro lighting in a scene, I can close the iris down and turn off the gain and the noise goes away. Unlit areas of the set turn black and are not noisy. Does this camera work differently?

3. It looks like the short was shot in 720 24p, but it still has a video look to it. I was wondering if anyone out there had some suggestions on how to make the image more film like?

4. How did you guys get a camera so quickly (I ordered mine in November and I'm still waiting)?

Keep in mind that I am not criticizing this short. It was shot well (considering it was done in 48 hours). I am just commenting on the quality of the image so that we can all discuss it. Again, the team did a very good job and should be proud.

[Robert_Niemann]

First of all I have to say: That is the sort of clips I want to see (more). I thank you very much for your contribution, Rob.
But I have to accede to thefilmaddict. In some situations the noise is really really heavy. For example (and most of all) the bed scenes. How did you illumine these scenes?
Regarding the film look: Well, for me it looks like high resolution DVX pictures: a bit hazy. I prefer the JVC HD100.

[Mr. Blonde]

Robweiner...THANK YOU MY MAN! I noticed no noise except in the bedroom scene where the noise was clearly dancing around like little demons on the wall behind the bed. I wonder how this scene was lit? Please do tell Rob...

Besides that, well, I think that the lighting was a bit off for some shots but it was easy to see that this baby is truly a DVX on STEROIDS! AWESOME! Hell I think this camera should've been colored green, I mean, such a little camera with such stunning image power, it should've been the Panasonic Hulk200! This footage in combination with the 35mm blowup from pappas continues to impress me and re-assure me that this really is THE CAMERA FOR INDIE FILM MAKERS!

[skinnyboy]

I think I can answer how they got the camera so fast - Panasonic co-sponsored the 48 Film Project, and the top 5 winning teams across the country from the first round each got to use an HVX for the final round.
Whichever team won that final round got to keep the camera.

I am also curious about the noise factor. Of course, knowing the above info, we have to realize that they were using the camera for the first time and only had probably 15-20 hours to actually shoot all the footage (it still had to be edited, too).

Very impressive short.

Thanks for posting.

[Stevet]

Well overall it looks OK, but the noise level is NOT good.

It appears to be noise from the footage, not a result of the
wmv or mov render. Of course, there are compression artifacts, but
that's due to the recompress to low data rate files.

The wmv file looks good, but it's VERY noisy even when the scene is in adequate light.

Michael Pappas recently attended a 35mm blowup of the HVX200 and said it looked good. He did not mention that the picture was noisy.

I realize it's not going to compare to a 20K camera, but this footage is as
noisy as some stuff I've seen on $400.00 cameras.

Rob, was the original footage this noisy?
Was gain used?
Also, if you know how the camera was set,please let us know?

Thanks, Steve

[Danilo Del Tufo]

Another sad report from NoiseHvx200...sniff...Panasonic hope you make things right with Pal version, considering it' so pricey than Usa version.
The short movie is good. But noise it's a nightmare.
Canon footage it's still amazing, considering tape and 4:2:0 color sampling...someone make bad footage with Canon too please!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I'm still waiting for Hvx200's secret and hidden weapon, Panasonic...Noise IT'S NOT a SECRET WEAPON! Variable framerate it's a secret weapon, P2 it's a secret weapon, but noise it's only a nightmare for a camera so full of promise...
Image quality it's too much important in a camera...

[Justin_Kirch]

we need someone with superb knowledge to take this camera out on a real shoot and show what it's made of. the first footage ever posted looked great with no noise at all. those are experienced DP's. all of these noise shots we have encountered are, for the most part, from amateur DPs that still need practice...atleast that's what i'm hoping. i'm sure this footage is noisy because the teams weren't able to fiddle around with it enough before the shoot to find out what works for them.

i really need to get my hands on one of these just so i can prove myself wrong with all the doubt everyone else has.

[baquajim]

It really looks like that bedroom scene wasn't properly lit, or somebody changed something and didn't catch it.

I don't think the camera is noisy. Other people's footage has looked really clean.

Almost everyday someone posts bad DVX footage, and we all know what the camera is capable of.

[Isaac_Brody]

People, 48 hour film festival. They had 48 hours to write, shoot, and edit this piece. If you spent 48 hours shooting you would cut corners here and there. The well lit footage didn't have distracting noise, but the low lit footage did. Light your footage well and you shouldn't have any problems.

[robweiner]

Hi Folks,

I posted this link http://snagle.net/ yesterday because I knew many of you were hungry for ANYTHING from an HVX. Ironically, I never lend much credence to images posted on the web because there are so many factors that can contribute to image degradation. What comes out of a camera head and what ends up on a browser screen can be worlds apart. Having said that, here’s what I know:


The 48 Hour Film Project
The Bay Area team was one of five finalists in the competition. Everyone on the teams is an unpaid volunteer. The team was given a genre, a character, a prop and a line of dialogue last Friday (Jan 13) at 7pm and had 48 hours to deliver a finished 5 minute film. The local team had two DPs, one of whom is a friend of 25 years. He knew I was anxious to get my hands on a working HVX. Panasonic is a sponsor of the contest, and shipped a loaner HVX to each of the teams to use. My friend called me the day before the shoot and we spent several hours getting to know the camera so we would be at least somewhat familiar with it. We looked at it on a Dell 2405 and a Sony 8044. We concluded that the camera looked great, amazing for the price. But a little noisier than we would like in a perfect world.

The team started shooting around 9pm and worked through until 5pm the next day. We used a loaner Sony Luma (around 15-17”) for monitoring HD analog component. Everyone on the set thought the camera looked great. (A small confession. I needed some sleep and was not on set when the bedroom scene was shot. So I can’t shed much light on how things looked in the monitor for that scene. And it’s BY FAR, the noisiest scene in the web movie.) I also was not present for post-production and web compression. I’m sure the post people were pressed for time to make deadline and any tweaking was done under a crunch.

We used HD Norm as our basic setup, brought the ped down to –1 or –2 and detail down to –3 or –4 to the best of my recollection.


NOISE

Before this turns into NOISEFEST 2006, let me try to clarify a couple of things. I believe that the VAST MAJORITY of the noise you are seeing in the clips is web compression. AT NO TIME did I see any blocky artifacts when doing camera tests or on the set. And when we checked playback on set, the DVCPROHD codec looked terrific, basically transparent. So again, most of what you see is web compression.

Having said that, the camera is still a bit noisier than I would like it to be. I felt that before the shoot, during the shoot and during tests the next day. I have not had a chance to test this comprehensively with charts, waveform monitor, controlled lighting and another camera for accurate comparison. I have always felt that the DVX made an amazing picture, but a little noisier than it should be. Barry’s multi camera shootout concluded that the HVX was fastest, but noisier than the Sony Z1. I think Panasonic engineering makes this choice between sensitivity and noise. In fact, the two cameras are probably equally sensitive, but Sony goes in the other direction. If you ran a Z1 with 3db or 6 db of gain on, it would probably be similar in noise to the HVX. I wish Panasonic had given us a –3db gain switch, allowing us to quiet things down when low light is not an issue.

I’ll have more to say later, I wanted to get this out there.

[Isaac_Brody]

Rob, thanks for the information. Let us know more when you get a chance.

[Stevet]

People, 48 hour film festival. They had 48 hours to write, shoot, and edit this piece. If you spent 48 hours shooting you would cut corners here and there. The well lit footage didn't have distracting noise, but the low lit footage did. Light your footage well and you shouldn't have any problems.

Issac,
I'm not sure what your veiwing the wmv clip on, but even the well lit stuff is riddled with noise.

As I mentioned before, it's not the compression artifacts from the web file, but noise itself.

Actually the noise is VERY distracting for myself.
I could only imagine how bad it would look if I looked at it on m 24".
I'm at work now on my laptop.

[robweiner]

Some additional thoughts about working with the HVX:

Images were very sharp. Lens seems to be a great match for the CCD. The eyepiece and LCD screen seem to be the same as on the DVX. I would have liked to see a bump up in resolution. But the focus assist works well and the EVF detail button near the back of the cam turns up the eyepiece and screen detail to assist with focus. Then you can quickly turn it off after checking focus.

Colors are beautiful, just like the entire Panasonic line these days.

24P is gorgeous, just like we expect. 24P is what put Panasonic back in the game, IMHO.

P2 seems really robust. Cards were ingested by an HP laptop at around 1 gig per minute. The P2 Viewer is a nice piece of software for you PC people. I plan on using a Powerbook with FCP.

Camera is very solidly built. That’s a good thing. But I’m not sure my wrist would enjoy a day of handholding this camera. I’ll be looking for some form of shoulder/bodybrace contraption to take most of the weight.

[Isaac_Brody]

Hi Folks,
NOISE

Before this turns into NOISEFEST 2006, let me try to clarify a couple of things. I believe that the VAST MAJORITY of the noise you are seeing in the clips is web compression. AT NO TIME did I see any blocky artifacts when doing camera tests or on the set. And when we checked playback on set, the DVCPROHD codec looked terrific, basically transparent. So again, most of what you see is web compression.
I’ll have more to say later, I wanted to get this out there.

Stevet, did you read this. Yes, I can see some noise. But I'm not going to make any big judgements on quicktime or wmv files. If you look at both files you can easily see that quicktime and wmv add some funky artifacting in their compression schemes.

[Haakon]

The well lit footage didn't have distracting noise, but the low lit footage did. Light your footage well and you shouldn't have any problems.
The problem for the HVX seems to be that it's not necessarily about lighting "well," it's about lighting "brightly." Your quote should probably more accurately said, "the bright footage didn't have distracting noise, but the low lit footage did." Having intense contrast in a scene can certainly be considered footage that's lit "well," and it would be nice to have more options than shooting "white" or "almost white" to avoid noise. It's nice that the camera looks fantastic in outdoor situations or scenes flooded with light, but it's a little discouraging to see that time after time, nearly every black area has some kind of disatrous noise/artifacting problems.

Of course there comes a point where the camera is going to start getting noisy in low light situations; you need a certain amount of light to maintain detail in the shadows whether or not you're shooting MiniDV or 35mm film. The main concern that I think most people are having is that from the footage that's been released (and is still slowly being released), the camera seems to have less-than-average performance regarding noise in low-light situations across the board. And I am in agreeance, that's something to be concerned about.

I'm with Justin, I really wish I could just get my hands on the camera and make decisions for myself once and for all. I signed up for the HVX back in May... where are the cameras?

[Stevet]

Unfortunatley, I did read it, but after I sent out my other post. :)

Well, the compression artifacts are there as I mentioned.

I wish we could see a small MXF clip, or maybe another smaller wmv file (maybe 1 minute) encoded at a much higher bit rate say 20MB P/s. The one posted is at 6MB P/s.

[Stevet]

I'm hoping Panasonic hears our concerns.
I would think one fast fix would be to offer a -3dB option.
This would help the moderate lit shots that border with noise, of course
with a trade of sensitivity.

Steve

[robweiner]

For what it's worth guys, I ordered an HVX in August. I've had a chance to play with one. It's a bit noisier than I'd like it to be. The short P2 runtimes will require some workarounds and rethinking of workflow.

I could call my dealer and cancel my order. But for under $10 grand, this is an amazing tool. I can't wait for mine to show up!

[stephenlnoe]

Thanks for encoding that. I too am a warrior of the 48hour film project and know the problems associated with delivering on time and hindsight kicking your @ss because you missed something or you could have changed a little thing here or there to create more of an impact. Good effort!

Now on to the technicalities. Noise does not compress well. It is a fact. I know how hard it is to host giant files and the wmv is already 303MB, but a daratate of 9 to 10Mb is required for 720p wmv. It would even out the banding and the noise would be (still there) but more representative of what it actually looks like. This would drive the wmv file size through the roof! An idea would be to encode in quarter or half size with the same 6Mb rate to get a truer representation of the final product.

It's tough to compress noise without the entire image falling apart...

[Haakon]

I'll add a few comments since I was making a general comment earlier and the download of this particular movie hadn't finished yet.

I agree with Stephenloe that it's difficult to get a feel for the quality of the original files when it's been compressed down to a file for the web. This movie actually looked quite good, I thought - it's nice to see something longer than 20 seconds in different situations for once! :)

I see now what you meant Isaac about "not lighting well"... the bedroom scene looks like it was barely lit at all (especially compared to the other scenes which are actually lit decently). The noise is certainly much more obvious there, but one would expect it to be. That is different in comparison to the "karate" footage which was lit, but still had lots of artifacting.

I assume this was shot in 24p... do you have any information about any of the other settings, Rob?

[Lenilenapi]

I am confused,
What makes you guys think you can tell whether noise comes from the original images or from compression for the web?

I am dubious, but willing to learn here.
How can you tell the difference?

I assume that anything over the web will be noisy, but maybe i don't do alot of web movie watching.

I know that compressing my own DV demo reel through Sorenson codec that some scenes (usually noirish dark scenes) just looked terrible, esp stuf that had some grain to begin, with the grain issues were magnified greatly.

[Lenilenapi]

By the way, I missed that shoot because I was ill, but the DP and Gaffer on this shoot were very experienced guys.

[mochouinard]

The noise is present everywhere, It can only be compression. I hope... Barry help us out over here ;)

[Lenilenapi]

OK I just looked at it on my computer. Looked great to me except for the onviously underlit scenes.
Withouttalking to the DP about the images I can't say much, however the quality of the noise looks very much to me like some footage I compressed from dark footage I had shot in the past.
That was 35mm that only had a 3/4" dub of.
In my case the noise in the original was noticable but nearly as nasty looking as what I saw in the compression.

In my case stuff that looked fine in Beta or even VHS demo reels had to be chucked off line because of what compression did. (Of course I also had proble even puttingit on DVD.)
I guess I need to talk to the DP and see the original footage.

I think we probably do see an issue here, but how big it is remains to be seen.
Ther lit footage looks great to me , though again I don't what I'm looking at on the web.

[Antoine_Fabi]

...Now on to the technicalities. Noise does not compress well. It is a fact. I know how hard it is to host giant files and the wmv is already 303MB, but a daratate of 9 to 10Mb is required for 720p wmv. It would even out the banding and the noise would be (still there) but more representative of what it actually looks like. This would drive the wmv file size through the roof! An idea would be to encode in quarter or half size with the same 6Mb rate to get a truer representation of the final product.

It's tough to compress noise without the entire image falling apart...

Absolutely !

Go to the Quicktime section on the Apple site, watch the "V for Vendetta" trailer, it has a lot of dark scenes...and YES, even if it's from film, and even if they preobably used the "best" possible setting for H264 encoding, you'll see many blocking and some noise in the dark scenes. These artifacts are from these codecs. They are heavily compressed, it is normal they show a lot of blocks and steppy lower grayscale that are non existent in the actual footage. ...and it "amplifies" the noise, no doubt.

I am not saying the HVX has no noise, but it seems it is amplified here.

[Mr. Blonde]

Seriously, the only scene of this film that displayed noticeable noise was the bedroom scene where it was easy to see that it was lit poorly.....

Check out the last shot as they put the coffin into the hearst, that's also a low light shot and displayed no visible noise.

Still many questions to be answered, but you get what you give when it comes to lighting. If something is lit poorly, expect it to look that way.

[Mr. Blonde]

The shot seems to be lit by two kinos or gelled fresnels, one from low on the floor on the guys side and one from high on the left corner at the end of the bed. I wouldn't doubt it if the gain was turned up on this shot as well.

If you notice the noise on the other shots, you're being overly critical. Also if it were too clean, it'd give off a definite sense of video if you ask me.

[Stevet]

Good point blonde bro.

Hmmm...


Maybe they used gain at times?

Who knows.

[Mr. Blonde]

While were on the topic of low light noise......For those who still think the XL H1 isn't noisy, check out the DOF1 clip. (Only opened with WMP for me)

http://homepage.mac.com/sarke/FileSharing3.html

There's noise all over the green scarf and dare I say it, artifacting. Also interlaced jaggies all over the place.

[Danilo Del Tufo]

Mr blonde XlH1 file that you're talkin' about it's with Mini35 P+s Technik.
I've noticed from Dvinfo community there are problems with Xl H1 and Mini35.
I dunno if it's the last version (with the right support that P+S Technick claims with official photo in various site, ya know).
But, honestly I would to see some Mini35 footage with Hvx200, and I wonder why P+s Technick not realise some footage in its site, guys, I'm sure they have an Hvx200, why we must wait so long time, to see some clips or frame grabs?
More time going on, more time I think we live in a bizzare world.
This P+s Technick guys work in this field, but why we must wait SO LONG, SO LONG, guys to see only few samples?
I remember we've soon seen Jvc Hd100 with amazing footage from P+s technick, but despite all this hype of Hvx200, we've seen nothing.
What's happen with it? Evr'ybody is interested, evr'ybody talk and talk, but where's the footage?
We live in a very bizzarre world for sure.

[thefilmaddict]

In an earlier post robweiner wrote:

AT NO TIME did I see any blocky artifacts when doing camera tests or on the set. And when we checked playback on set, the DVCPROHD codec looked terrific, basically transparent. So again, most of what you see is web compression.

Having said that, the camera is still a bit noisier than I would like it to be. I felt that before the shoot, during the shoot and during tests the next day.

--------------------------

So it sounds like a lot of the noise comes from the compression used to make the web file. That's the good news, but again, robweiner did say (like many others before him) that the camera was noisier than he would like it to be. This being said, some people that have this camera are/were testing it to find out how to lower the noise (the best settings to use -- I think Barry listed the best settings to use in another post).

It would be great if someone could do a basic test using these settings. Perhaps someone could shoot a short clip of someone sitting down (perhaps interview style) lit using 3 point lighting. It would be great if this (much appreciated) test person could post the test footage uncompressed in a file format that can easily be read by Final Cut Pro. Perhaps the clip could be 20 seconds long. The first 5 seconds could be with just the key on, in the second 5 seconds the key and the fill, in the third 5 seconds, add a backlight, in the last 5 seconds turn on a background light. Don't blast the background with light, light it, but keep it a little moody. With that much lighting, the entire 20 second clip should be pretty clean. If the clip is only clean when all the lights are on (and the camera is at a decent f-stop), then this adds some problems for those of us that want to use this camera to shoot moody scenes.

I'm hoping that this little test puts my mind at ease about the noise issue. Thanks a million for anyone willing to do this test!!! If I had my HVX200, I would be happy to do it. By the way, if you have lights, why would you ever turn the gain on? Could it be that no matter what you set the camera at, the camera automatically tries to boost detail in the dark areas causing noise? If so, how would I turn this setting off? Smetimes you just want part of your image to be black and nothing else, right?

[thefilmaddict]

Also, any word about the camera shootout test that was done weeks ago? Everyone was very excited about it, then no new info. I would love to see/hear about the final results (even if they only tell part of the story -- I imagine that you need to see the footage yourself to make the final decision on what appeals to you the most). How's that going, Barry? I'm not rushing you, I'm just interested in knowing where you're at with thie test. You are a great guy and offer so much to this site.

[Danilo Del Tufo]

It could be a great test thefilmaddict. The problem is that who has bought Panasonic camera or is too busy at work, or is dead or something.
We must wait a LOT of time only to see few grabs of a camera so advertised by all medias. If someone that has bought this camera, I hope that has bought it to use it, so please help this community, with simple tests.
Sometimes I think someone was too scared from noise of Hvx200 to send back to Panasonic, because it's impossible that we can't see a new video at least ev'ry 2 days or more, we have filled this community with tons of message about it, and we've seen nothing! We're a nation here! Somebody post Light test! Thanks:)

[Kholi]

I have to say, after watching this film project and reading the replies--

Most of you guys/gals are INSATIABLE!

Wtf? This little short proves that this camera is freaking awesome and being tagged below 7k with p2 cards is unfreaking real.

I didn't even LIKE the story behind this short (no offense, but it wasn't written very well, though I do understand it was a 48 hour film competition so whatever) and I STILL sat through the whole thing.

ALl this fuss about artifacts, noise, what the hell ever-- THe average viewer won't even NOTICE this crap you guys are bitching about.

You want everything for NOTHING is what it sounds like. There are only a few people that've posted that have any kind of sense about themselves.

Bottom line-- Save up for five to seven years and buy something else. You want too much out of this camera and it ALREADY GIVES PLENTY!

Wtf.

As for the footage itself. To have been complete in fourty-eight hours or less, this looks DAMNED GOOD. This pretty much solidifies my decision already on which camera I'm shooting my short with.

You want testing? Go out and rent one for a day or two and do the tests yourself. Sheesh.

Whatever. I'm new here, but I can tell when people are asking way to much out of something that's plenty.

Thanks for showing the footage.

[Stevet]

ALl this fuss about artifacts, noise, what the hell ever-- THe average viewer won't even NOTICE this crap you guys are bitching about.

You want everything for NOTHING is what it sounds like. There are only a few people that've posted that have any kind of sense about themselves.

Bottom line-- Save up for five to seven years and buy something else. You want too much out of this camera and it ALREADY GIVES PLENTY!

Wtf.



Well, than I guess I'm not the "average viewer".

Nobody will disagree that the footage looks good, especially since it's a compressed clip for the web.

The noise issue may may not be an issue for YOU, but it is for some others.
We all know the HVX produces a very decent 24P image. If they could improve on the noise floor comparable to other cameras such as Sony, it would be a hit all around.

I would of thought the -3dB gain option would of been a great addition.

[Kholi]

Well, than I guess I'm not the "average viewer".

Nobody will disagree that the footage looks good, especially since it's a compressed clip for the web.

The noise issue may may not be an issue for YOU, but it is for some others.
We all know the HVX produces a very decent 24P image. If they could improve on the noise floor comparable to other cameras such as Sony, it would be a hit all around.

I would of thought the -3dB gain option would of been a great addition.
No, you aren't the average viewier and neither am I. I can see what you all are pointing out and while it may be a travesty for this six-to-seven thousand dollar camera to produce noise... your average audience and more than likely a festival audience won't be concerned with such an issue. Your purpose might not be the same, but my purpose is to produce a short film to show to those average people and festival goers.

Either way, the only way people will be pleased is if they were to save for that Sony or other low-noise camera.

If people want tests, better footage, etc. They should rent the camera from their local rental house and do them. Sitting around and whining about noise levels, p2 cards (I know this thread wasn't about that) and all the other "issues" isn't doing this forum or this thread in particular any good at all.

[thefilmaddict]

Kholi,

I've never said that this camera is not a good value, but the camera is a much bigger investment than under seven thousand. It's a new way of working. To do work with this camera in the real world shooting HD, you're going to need 2 8GB P2 cards (or some other portable storage device), some way to back up the footage in the field (like a portable computer if 16GB of footage is not enough for you in a days shoot), an extra battery, a field monitor (optional, but many have said that focusing in HD is critical, so a HD monitor is recommended), a way to archive your footage in post (perhaps a Blu Ray Burner when it comes out) and a HD distribution method (perhaps Blu Ray will solve that problem, too). I won't go into the cost of lighting equipment, sound gear and post equipment (that's not really relevant -- if you want to do good work you need these things), but I hope you understand that this all adds up to a big investment.

Perhaps you are rich and this is chump change, but for me it's a pretty big deal. I think that many of us just want to see what this camera can do. When we see footage that raises some questions/concerns, we like to post those questions here, so that as a group we can help each other out to do better work. If this site is just about blindly praising a camera, then it will not benefit anyone.

Also, there are other HD cameras out there under $10,000, so critical comparisons help people make informed decisions. I ordered the HVX200 months ago. I visit this forum often to read about the camera so that I can use the knowledge to make better looking films.

You say that "ordinary people" won't notice things like noise, but I disagree. Perhaps they won't be able to point out what's technically wrong with our shots, but they will feel it. The average person gets to watch films that cost millions of dollars. I don't expect a six thousand dollar camera to look like a $100,000 camera, but with knowledge and experience, we can all push these little cameras to make them look closer to the big guns. What's wrong with that?

Is it wrong to ask for people to test out the camera? I don't think so. If I had the camera now, I would run some tests. Are you not interested in seeing what this camera can really do?

As you said in your post: wtf (just kidding)!

[Mr. Blonde]

The HVX is just as noisy as the XL H1, that being said, make your decision based on everything else besides the noise factor.

In my book, the HVX wins hands down!

[Stevet]

Sitting around and whining about noise levels, p2 cards (I know this thread wasn't about that) and all the other "issues" isn't doing this forum or this thread in particular any good at all.

Here again, I disagree.

Face it, if everyone had this mentality, there would be NO advances in technology.
The "it's good enough" doesn't work for me.

If everyone thought this way, including the design engineers, there world NEVER be improvements in noise levels, or anything for that matter.

[Kholi]

Kholi,

I've never said that this camera is not a good value, but the camera is a much bigger investment than under seven thousand. It's a new way of working. To do work with this camera in the real world shooting HD, you're going to need 2 8GB P2 cards (or some other portable storage device), some way to back up the footage in the field (like a portable computer if 16GB of footage is not enough for you in a days shoot), an extra battery, a field monitor (optional, but many have said that focusing in HD is critical, so a HD monitor is recommended), a way to archive your footage in post (perhaps a Blu Ray Burner when it comes out) and a HD distribution method (perhaps Blu Ray will solve that problem, too). I won't go into the cost of lighting equipment, sound gear and post equipment (that's not really relevant -- if you want to do good work you need these things), but I hope you understand that this all adds up to a big investment.

Perhaps you are rich and this is chump change, but for me it's a pretty big deal. I think that many of us just want to see what this camera can do. When we see footage that raises some questions/concerns, we like to post those questions here, so that as a group we can help each other out to do better work. If this site is just about blindly praising a camera, then it will not benefit anyone.

Also, there are other HD cameras out there under $10,000, so critical comparisons help people make informed decisions. I ordered the HVX200 months ago. I visit this forum often to read about the camera so that I can use the knowledge to make better looking films.

You say that "ordinary people" won't notice things like noise, but I disagree. Perhaps they won't be able to point out what's technically wrong with our shots, but they will feel it. The average person gets to watch films that cost millions of dollars. I don't expect a six thousand dollar camera to look like a $100,000 camera, but with knowledge and experience, we can all push these little cameras to make them look closer to the big guns. What's wrong with that?

Is it wrong to ask for people to test out the camera? I don't think so. If I had the camera now, I would run some tests. Are you not interested in seeing what this camera can really do?

As you said in your post: wtf (just kidding)!

I understand where people are coming from as content creators. But all in all, is the noise issue REALLY that important?

When you dive into cost issues: It's not that this camera's cost is "chump change" to me. By all means, no. And I don't take for granted the "toys" that I'm using. Didn't mean to come off like that if I did. I can see how taxing it might be to switch your worflow over to HD, and it's really no joke; a lot can't afford it.

In the same instance, how many of us are going to go RIGHT into HD production? The market isn't even ready for HD intensive media. I don't know how many people on this forum actually own an HD television, but I would guess that number would be a very small one.

As I've been told plenty of times, this camera's a future investment. You get it, take advantage of the DVCpro50, and then later on move to HD. Or, as Luis said, master your work in HD for later distribution.

Only other options I see, as stated before, do your own tests or buy a different camera.

wtf! (running joke).

[Kholi]

Here again, I disagree.

Face it, if everyone had this mentality, there would be NO advances in technology.
The "it's good enough" doesn't work for me.

If everyone thought this way, including the design engineers, there world NEVER be improvements in noise levels, or anything for that matter.
You're speaking from a completely different level, Stevet. Though I do respect your position, because there's proof out there. Dvx100, Dvx100a, dvx100b-- Without people taking note of what could be made better, there wouldn't be more upgrades.

What I don't think, though, is that constantly covering these certain issues throughout the forums before you (personally) or anyone else even has access to the camera to toy with is totally off-base.

The majority of people that are troubled by the issues haven't even touched the camera before.

Don't you think that's a little... sideways?

Too add to that -- It's business first. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I'm sure they're going to do the same thing they did with the DVX. Release newer versions tagged "a" and "b" with lots of corrections.

So, maybe a people should just wait to purchase the camera instead if it doesn't meet their standards right out of the gate?

[thefilmaddict]

Kholi,
WTF! That's a good point, but I hope that you can see my p.o.v., too.

[Kholi]

Kholi,
WTF! That's a good point, but I hope that you can see my p.o.v., too.

WTF! Yes! I do. I definitely see why people are upset about certain things but I don't think that the issues are really that major. That's just my opinion, though.

[thefilmaddict]

As far as making judgements about the camera before even touching it, I don't think that anyone is attacking this camera before using it. All we can go on now is the footage that people post. It's not a bad thing to bring up a potential issue that we/I see and then discuss it. I wanted to go a step further. Use the new lower noise settings and shoot a simple test. That way we could take this discussion to the next level. If you think that I am wrong to throw out a testing idea that someone else can perform, I'm sorry. It's just an idea. WTF (I love using that)!

[Kholi]

As far as making judgements about the camera before even touching it, I don't think that anyone is attacking this camera before using it. All we can go on now is the footage that people post. It's not a bad thing to bring up a potential issue that we/I see and then discuss it. I wanted to go a step further. Use the new lower noise settings and shoot a simple test. That way we could take this discussion to the next level. If you think that I am wrong to throw out a testing idea that someone else can perform, I'm sorry. It's just an idea. WTF (I love using that)!

No, I don't think you're wrong for throwing it out there. I guess constantly reading posts about the same things over and over again (though I do have the choice of what to read and what not to) is getting tiresome.

But, if someone PMs me how to do a real low-light test or whatever, I'll do it this week when I get the camera and they can host the file.

Personally, I think that the camera (for the price-tag) is enough to move on. People did it with the DVX100 obviously, and still got great results at the time.

Wtf just do it.

[thefilmaddict]

I don't care so much about testing the camera out in a low light situation. I'm more interested in seeing what a well lit scene looks like in the black areas. I would hope that a scene like that, using the low noise settings, would be very clean (even if the shot has some large dark areas). WTF am I saying? I hope you guys get what I'm tring to say.

One more thing about grain (and it's not about the HVX, it's just an opinion) if it (the grain/noise) is light and all over the image, I think that gives the video more of a film look. If the noise is concentrated in just some parts of the screen, that's not pretty (that's distracting).

[Isaac_Brody]

Shouldn't this discussion be about the film? :huh:

[redindian]

dancing little monsters in the bedroom scenes.... NoiseVX200....it sure looked like real noise.. not organic...nor filmic...
when floodlights are thrown it produces spectacular picture... (and so would any other camera...i guess)

i hope it was DP error... (some freaky setting he forgot to change)

[soarprod]

It looks like +12db from my DVX in the bedroom scenes and seems close to the +12 setting at DVExpo = it probably was +12db. I remember a shoot I did where the DP didnt really know how to use the DVX well. He kept underexposing the image and then started using the gain. I warned him that it would be a problem later but he didnt listen - DOH! Same problem as under lighting and expecting to fix it in post.

[Mr. Blonde]

Yup I'm guessing it was a gain boost that created those little grain critters.

[Haakon]

I understand where people are coming from as content creators. But all in all, is the noise issue REALLY that important?
If it's worse than the previous generation of technology it supercedes, then yes.

The majority of people that are troubled by the issues haven't even touched the camera before.
I don't think it's an issue of people not wanting to touch the camera. :)

The footage that the rest of the people who haven't "touched the camera" (all but about 3 or 4 of us) have seen has varied wildly and it's tough to get a handle on what the camera is truly capable of. Evin did a national spot and said it looked great, but we can't see any of the content he shot (this is completely understandable, but doesn't change the facts). A bunch of professionals got together and did a "6 camera shootout" that was supposedly very technical, but we haven't seen as much as a screen grab from that. All we have to go by are a few random clips from some non-professional tests from a user in Japan and a few 5 second "in store" shots from some people that tested the camera out in showroom lobbies. It's not exactly scientific material. This film is the first thing we've gotten to see that's over a minute in length, has some decent attempts at different lighting scenarios, and is being presented in its native size so we can at least get a feel for what kind of color, latitude, and depth of field the camera is capable of (that are all independent of "compression for the web"). Because of this, there is bound to be a lot of scrutiny taking place with these clips, and like thefilmaddict said, "I think that many of us just want to see what this camera can do. When we see footage that raises some questions/concerns, we like to post those questions here, so that as a group we can help each other out to do better work. If this site is just about blindly praising a camera, then it will not benefit anyone." I think that's the point that a lot of us are trying to get after.


So, maybe a people should just wait to purchase the camera instead if it doesn't meet their standards right out of the gate?
Well, unfortunately the HVX is the only HD camera in this price range that is even moderately appealing to me, so it's what I'm intent on purchasing. With the waiting lists 300+ deep, you'll be waiting a long time if you want to wait around for a camera to be sitting on the shelves you can play with. I'm not afraid, because this camera will be popular for awhile and if for some reason it doesn't "meet my standards," I'm sure I can resell it and get its full value back. That being said, I'm not going to sit around for another year and wait for Red to materialize before I start making more films. It doesn't seem like the cameras are shipping at any constant rate, so if Panny is still tweaking these things, they might as well know what concerns the end users are having and act accordingly. Even if those changes don't get implemented until an "A" version, the concerns still need to be raised.

[Barry_Green]

Also, any word about the camera shootout test that was done weeks ago?
Adam is doing the final writeup. He's close to posting something.

[mochouinard]

Barry, that was your 12 000 post... Congrats :thumbsup:

[Kholi]

If it's worse than the previous generation of technology it supercedes, then yes.

I don't think it's an issue of people not wanting to touch the camera. :)

The footage that the rest of the people who haven't "touched the camera" (all but about 3 or 4 of us) have seen has varied wildly and it's tough to get a handle on what the camera is truly capable of. Evin did a national spot and said it looked great, but we can't see any of the content he shot (this is completely understandable, but doesn't change the facts). A bunch of professionals got together and did a "6 camera shootout" that was supposedly very technical, but we haven't seen as much as a screen grab from that. All we have to go by are a few random clips from some non-professional tests from a user in Japan and a few 5 second "in store" shots from some people that tested the camera out in showroom lobbies. It's not exactly scientific material. This film is the first thing we've gotten to see that's over a minute in length, has some decent attempts at different lighting scenarios, and is being presented in its native size so we can at least get a feel for what kind of color, latitude, and depth of field the camera is capable of (that are all independent of "compression for the web"). Because of this, there is bound to be a lot of scrutiny taking place with these clips, and like thefilmaddict said, "I think that many of us just want to see what this camera can do. When we see footage that raises some questions/concerns, we like to post those questions here, so that as a group we can help each other out to do better work. If this site is just about blindly praising a camera, then it will not benefit anyone." I think that's the point that a lot of us are trying to get after.


Well, unfortunately the HVX is the only HD camera in this price range that is even moderately appealing to me, so it's what I'm intent on purchasing. With the waiting lists 300+ deep, you'll be waiting a long time if you want to wait around for a camera to be sitting on the shelves you can play with. I'm not afraid, because this camera will be popular for awhile and if for some reason it doesn't "meet my standards," I'm sure I can resell it and get its full value back. That being said, I'm not going to sit around for another year and wait for Red to materialize before I start making more films. It doesn't seem like the cameras are shipping at any constant rate, so if Panny is still tweaking these things, they might as well know what concerns the end users are having and act accordingly. Even if those changes don't get implemented until an "A" version, the concerns still need to be raised.

Can't argue with that.

Yet, the sooner people like you get ahold of the camera to test away, the better off the forum will be.

With that said--

The short looks great to me. The writing, well... I'm not so sure about.

Looking forward to another short shot with this camera.

[AppliedVisual]

Hmmm... Nifty little project. Looks like it was fun to make.

Noise - bedroom scene is bad, obviously poorly light, too much gain. Some noise elsewhere, but a lot of it looks amplified by the compression for the web. Overall, looks great though.. People are complaining about this when we're coming from DV??? Sheesh.

And, a note to actors. When lying in a casket or wheverever and trying to look dead, try not to breathe so much.

[joelnet]

Issac,
I'm not sure what your veiwing the wmv clip on, but even the well lit stuff is riddled with noise.

As I mentioned before, it's not the compression artifacts from the web file, but noise itself.

Actually the noise is VERY distracting for myself.
I could only imagine how bad it would look if I looked at it on m 24".


That's kinda my feeling. I still need to test against JVC and Canon... but I have been looking at it on a 24 inch monitor.. I'd say the bedroom scenes probably had gain boosted. They just don't look right. So ignore them. But the dinner scene and funeral home look like they have great lighting. The pixel dance in the clothes, skin tones and background is what you'll get for real.

What's interesting is on my test footage the real noise isn't way down in the blacks... it's in the dark tones above that. I can see it in skin tones and shadowed facial areas and that's what's bothering me the most.

Oh - and all the blockiness is web compression, there's TONS of crap in some of these Internet versions you don't see the real footage. I think the filmmaker here said "noisier than he'd like to see" when referring to what they got in the monitor and that's what I thought when I saw original footage too.

BUT I think ALL these cameras have noise and you just have to pick which you like best.

[joelnet]

As I've been told plenty of times, this camera's a future investment.

Personally I NEVER buy any rapidly changing piece of technology until I NEED it. In 6 months we might have 3 new cameras to pick from in this price range that are better. If you don't need this for 6 months wait till then and shop.

A lot of people do want HD right now though so their FOOTAGE has a little leverage on the future. Right now 25% of American Homes have HD ready TV's. That's a good reason to shoot HD now with this camera. When will BlueRay, HD-DVD or iPodHD arrive? Probably about the same time some of us are completing post... or are starting marketing.

But to buy it now for a future shoot is liking buying a computer now 'cause you'll need one later. Wait and get a lot more for you money. Or buy mine used when I upgrade. :-)

[Kholi]

Personally I NEVER buy any rapidly changing piece of technology until I NEED it. In 6 months we might have 3 new cameras to pick from in this price range that are better. If you don't need this for 6 months wait till then and shop.

A lot of people do want HD right now though so their FOOTAGE has a little leverage on the future. Right now 25% of American Homes have HD ready TV's. That's a good reason to shoot HD now with this camera. When will BlueRay, HD-DVD or iPodHD arrive? Probably about the same time some of us are completing post... or are starting marketing.

But to buy it now for a future shoot is liking buying a computer now 'cause you'll need one later. Wait and get a lot more for you money. Or buy mine used when I upgrade. :-)

I don't know if we view future investments the same. I'm not worried about waiting to spend money so I get the best at that time. I need to get what I can for my money at this moment. If I have to get something else later, I'll sell it for half price and shell out the remainder to get the newer model. No big deal.

As far as HD is concerned: Even if that twenty-five percent number were completely accurate, which I'm not saying it is or isn't, there still isn't a way to get your HD content to those televisions on-the-fly. So, you're basically waiting for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD... which basically means purchasing the camera now is a future investment.

Speaking of getting what I can -- We might be switching to the XLH1 after we rent both cameras and do real-time testing this week. Either way, doesn't matter to me. I want to go one step beyond the DVX and both provide that signifcant step.

[Kholi]

By the way -- This might sound like I'm biting my own tongue or something...

I just pulled up this short on the 30" CinemaHD for referencing HVX footage to someone else.....

And I really noticed what artifacts everyone's talking about. It's not just in the bedroom scene.

Viewing this one on the PC monitor versus the Apple monitor was a world of difference. I think this had to be due to compression as well as lighting, as stated before. But... wow... that is pretty bad.

Sorry about that. I feel like an ass. =D

But that's a WORLD of difference from monitor to monitor.

[Steve Connor]

Yet if you look at Kaku's clips, recorded in poor or no lighting conditions there is nowhere near the amount of noise that is in this short.

[Kholi]

To add to that, I've seen the footage of the bridge and the old man, along with the water and slow mo clips of the car rounding the corner and there wasn't any noticeable noise, or anything that really affected the viewing. And I looked at both on the 23" and 30" displays.

Damn, the artifacts in this one on the display made my skin crawl.

[redindian]

oh man.. i saw artifacts and noise even on a PC monitor.. now I am scared to look on a HD monitor (if i had one :)

[Stevet]

I hear you..

We will probably never know the settings used in each shot.

I'm thinking this camera could of done better in noise if the settings were played with more. I do like the over all composition of the shot.

As Kholi mention, we have other low light examples that do not have this noise issue.

[joelnet]

Hopefully the 4 way shootout footage will reveal a good comparison. All these cameras have noise. The F-900 has noise. There's "visible noise" in EVERY shot... but you have to decide which is the most pleasing to your eye along with the other characteristics of the image.

Pixeldance is one thing, but chroma noise - where colored snow is introduced into either shadows or skintones is not flattering. That's one thing I'll be comparing. As has been mentioned here noise does not compress well... SO if you plan on delivering compressed video on the Internet getting the cleanest camera makes some sense.

Adam's report will be interesting.

[Kholi]

I'm thinking the same thing.

It's all about what you want out of your camera, basically. But shiet, I didn't notice the grotesque distortion/noise going on in this until I pulled it up on the other screen.

Can't have any of that.

Just have to wait to do my own two-way shootout this week. H1 vs HVX.

[joelnet]

Just have to wait to do my own two-way shootout this week. H1 vs HVX.

That's the only way to fly. Check out some of Barry's recommended HVX settings. There must be some similar for the H1.

[Danilo Del Tufo]

If we can have -3dB on Hvx200 maybe the problem will be resolved. I'm sure that if Panasonic or someone of the company as Jan, see this, well they surely think the same way. I'm very sad, because for example the colorimetry of the Skin it's beauty, specially if you try to low the gamma. This camera can very imitate the film.
It's only the damned noise that has ruined all the camera's revolution.
Guys, I think it's time that Panasonic oughta say simple "We're checking about this problem, soon we tweak with firmware, so don't worry."
I'd really respect Panasonic if they admit that something it's strange with this camera. Nothing is perfect but evr'ything could be improved.
But it's not a professional way, to be so silent about a problem we've noticed in a lot of footage.
Considering too, Hd norm, not cinegamma applied...so we're in a very big trouble!
I'm very worried about to color correct footage from this camera (I'm trying with various footage and I've noticed problems) cause the noise will pop out at minum error, it's a nightmare.
I'm sure that Barry Green also have some thoughts about it, it's impossible.
I'm worried that Barry don't say a thing about it. Only tweak here and there...
Barry this camera works or not? Be honest...
If this is the result, the noise has surpassed threshold's acceptability, not only for myself but for a lot of people.

[Jim Arthurs]

Shouldn't this discussion be about the film? :huh:

Yeah, why not! But it's only logical that we'd pick on the HVX issues, as this short is probably longer than all previous HVX footage we've seen, combined. I see some promise here, as the HVX can make an image full of luster and depth. I also worry that even a properly exposed scene will have noise dancing in the mid-tones. Very odd... I'm hoping that the optimum gamma/matrix setting will make that go away. No way to know unless someone actually posts some footage using the best settings. Hint, hint. So, post some short raw files with a nice set of settings, someone...

The film... first kudos to anyone trying to do something in 48 hrs start to finish. I'm sure I couldn't line up a hearst and/or coffin in that period of time, let alone actually write/shoot/edit it. And of course I'm sure that the filmmakers have a long list of things they'd change if given a bit more time.

A pleasing selection of actors, I like the funky gag about the main guy needing a shower all the time. The lighting was very spotty... rather nice on the priest, etc. When it was bad, it was VERY bad, and that ruined the overall effect.

The grey painted flat placed behind the main actor to catch the blood splatter needed to be "propped" up a bit with some pictures, etc.

BTW, one shot here is framed up off the actual painted area! Was this because the HVX doesn't show full raster top/bottom? I hope not. This is the PERFECT reason there should be full underscan in the viewfinder. A bit troubled by this.

Finally, the focus was a bit hit or miss... and just slightly off when it was off. I think you folks with the whole 35mm adaptor fetish will be hard pressed to nail your focus when using such a rig... as getting proper focus is hard enough on a small crew with a 1/3" chip... I'd rather see a bit more DOF than a shallow out of focus shot any day of the week.

However, some other post related technical nit-picks that wouldn't have taken any more time...

1.) Pick a better font, put a little more effort into the titles. There's probably +6,000,000 fonts on the computer it was edited on, at least mouse down the list a bit before selecting.

2.) Don't scroll your 24p end credits. Just put up page after page of static. Or at least scroll them at the proper speed to avoid strobe.

3.) Never, ever, ever, ever, ever use a page wipe in a dramatic production.

4.) Did I mention the page wipe? No really.

5.) Didn't like the white flash frames used for gunshots.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

[Kholi]

Yeah, why not! But it's only logical that we'd pick on the HVX issues, as this short is probably longer than all previous HVX footage we've seen, combined. I see some promise here, as the HVX can make an image full of luster and depth. I also worry that even a properly exposed scene will have noise dancing in the mid-tones. Very odd... I'm hoping that the optimum gamma/matrix setting will make that go away. No way to know unless someone actually posts some footage using the best settings. Hint, hint. So, post some short raw files with a nice set of settings, someone...

The film... first kudos to anyone trying to do something in 48 hrs start to finish. I'm sure I couldn't line up a hearst and/or coffin in that period of time, let alone actually write/shoot/edit it. And of course I'm sure that the filmmakers have a long list of things they'd change if given a bit more time.

A pleasing selection of actors, I like the funky gag about the main guy needing a shower all the time. The lighting was very spotty... rather nice on the priest, etc. When it was bad, it was VERY bad, and that ruined the overall effect.

The grey painted flat placed behind the main actor to catch the blood splatter needed to be "propped" up a bit with some pictures, etc.

BTW, one shot here is framed up off the actual painted area! Was this because the HVX doesn't show full raster top/bottom? I hope not. This is the PERFECT reason there should be full underscan in the viewfinder. A bit troubled by this.

Finally, the focus was a bit hit or miss... and just slightly off when it was off. I think you folks with the whole 35mm adaptor fetish will be hard pressed to nail your focus when using such a rig... as getting proper focus is hard enough on a small crew with a 1/3" chip... I'd rather see a bit more DOF than a shallow out of focus shot any day of the week.

However, some other post related technical nit-picks that wouldn't have taken any more time...

1.) Pick a better font, put a little more effort into the titles. There's probably +6,000,000 fonts on the computer it was edited on, at least mouse down the list a bit before selecting.

2.) Don't scroll your 24p end credits. Just put up page after page of static. Or at least scroll them at the proper speed to avoid strobe.

3.) Never, ever, ever, ever, ever use a page wipe in a dramatic production.

4.) Did I mention the page wipe? No really.

5.) Didn't like the white flash frames used for gunshots.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

Oh I forgot-- To add to Jim's Comments :

The editing seemed to be a bit off. More so where the gunshots were concerned. The pauses in between cuts were too far apart, and made the bullet hit seemed very lagged. If this was done on purpose for an effective "dream state" scene, that's fine. But, it seemed staggered to me.

[NickMilo]

Is it just me or is the link not working ??

EDIT: Got it, Guess it was just me...

[wambli]

me to I can't get it to work. I also tried but there was only audio.

[FullRez]

It seems that several of those who have access to the HVX already are reporting noise. That is not good, but until we have more to confirm this the jury is still out.

[Haakon]

The sooner people like you get ahold of the camera to test away, the better off the forum will be.
Believe me, no one wants the camera to arrive sooner at my house than I do. :-P

[Ralph Oshiro]

All this fuss about artifacts, noise, what the hell ever--The average viewer won't even NOTICE this crap you guys are bitching about.First of all, a huge THANK YOU to Rob Weiner for posting the short (I'm still downloading)!

Kholi:

I see your point, but I really disagree. I shot my zombie short with my DVX100, and in one shot I have a KinoFlo wrapped in blue gel to create a soft blue wash over the background of the shot. This was NOT an example of a "low light" scene. That Kino was putting out about 40 footcandles or more (the Kino was on a table, washing about a two-square foot area on a wall that was just inches from the Kino source). Once that shot got compressed to MPEG-2 for DVD authoring, it was a snowstorm. Both my mom and my girlfriend, neither of which are technically astute in any way, said, "Why does that look so noisy?" If you saw the footage, I'm sure you would agree. This was not a case of something "being lit poorly." It's simply a case of a 1/3" imaging system that's unable to reproduce heavily saturated hue without a LOT of chroma noise. Remember, straight out of the camera is one thing, but we all have to eventually dub to some sort of distribution medium, and at this time, it's typically a DVD or VHS tape. Once you compress to MPEG-2, or dub to VHS, any noise in the picture becomes multiplied several-fold.

Maybe this example states the case even more plainly . . . VHS sucks, right? Well, any commercially duplicated VHS movie will have LESS noise than anything I've ever shot on a 1/3" camera--and that's simply not acceptable. And this is footage shot in broad daylight, at f/11 or greater, at 0dB.

Again, I do see your point. I mean what can you expect from a sub-$10,000 camera anyway? However, I've examined HVX images for a total of about six hours between DV Expo West and RESfest L.A. on both HD CRTs and HD LCD displays and it was difficult to determine what the noise levels were. I just went down to Birns & Sawyer's new location this afternoon to check out an HVX, but to no avail. They were prepping one package to go out on a rental, and the other was in rental inventory. No one was available to demo the camera, and apparently, they only have two. And by the way, the day rate on the HVX rental there was $450/day. I did see the Canon XL-H1 on display. I pointed the H1 at a translight that had a New York skyline with a twilight blue sky image on it. At least on the LCD display, the blue portion of the translight was very noisy.

Last week, I happened to shoot some very cool footage at work with a Sony BVW400A analog BetacamSP camera, and did a composite dub to miniDV. You know what? No noise. I mean ZERO noise. This, coming from a 10-year-old analog camera, recording to an even older analog format, with no TBC, using a plain ole' COMPOSITE video BNC-to-RCA cable! I've decided that there's only so much that can be expected from a 1/3" system. I'm now pretty dead set on getting the Sony PDW-F330 1/2" XDCAM HD when it comes out.

[Emanuel]

A)

Thanks for your noise report NBCshooter! Your POV is one of my favourites.


Last week, I happened to shoot some very cool footage at work with a Sony BVW400A analog BetacamSP camera, and did a composite dub to miniDV. You know what? No noise. I mean ZERO noise. I've decided that there's only so much that can be expected from a 1/3" system. I'm now pretty dead set on getting the Sony PDW-F330 1/2" XDCAM HD when it comes out.Why not a FX1E/Z1U...OK, that's 1/3" CCC cam but there's no noise, too...

B)

And for Christ's sake, why not this noise test ??!!!... :
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=43940

[Ralph Oshiro]

Well, now that I've seen the short (well, not all of it, the file apparently got corrupted), but I did see the infamous "bedroom scene." First of all, you can't tell much from compressed web footage. But from what I could tell from the bedroom scene, I'm GUESSING that it was keyed with perhaps 15-25 footcandles of light. It's not that it was "poorly lit." I thought it was lit quite nicely. It was just underlit for this camera. You could pour an 18K into that window, and adequately stopped down and ND'd, you could still effect a "low key" look.

Nevertheless, that scene still helps to underscore my point. Highly compressed web footage is what we've got as one of our primary delivery channels. MPEG-2 compressed DVDs, VHS tape, and compressed files via the web is how many of our "clients" will see our narrative work samples. If I produce a short film worthy of any serious consideration, you bet I'm going to submit a compressed web version to ifilm.com and atomfilms.com. I'm also going to drop off a DVD to CAA, ICM, NBC/Universal, Artisan, Lion's Gate, and any other high-powered place where I can shove it under the door. And like it or not, that DVD is going to be MPEG-2 compressed.

[Barry_Green]

I'm sure that Barry Green also have some thoughts about it, it's impossible.
I'm worried that Barry don't say a thing about it. Only tweak here and there...
Barry this camera works or not? Be honest...
I've said my piece a hundred times already. The HVX does *not* have a noise problem. Yes it has noise in its signal; about the same (yes, the SAME) amount of noise as the XLH1 does. Put them in the same circumstances, shoot the same scene under the same lighting, and you'll get the same amount of noise.

I again reiterate -- the HVX has the same amount of noise as a DVX100B. It has more noise than the Sony, less noise than the JVC, and the same noise as an XLH1. It is not noise-free. Neither is the DVX. Neither is the Canon. Its pictures look fantastic. Look back on the basketball footage, or the desert footage, or the kitchen table footage.

Why do I need to weigh in again? Do people somehow think that the noise will magically magnify if they don't keep track of it? It is what it is, and it works very well. Go read Evin's report, where he had a chance to use it in a professional production environment, where he said something like (Evin's words, if I remember correctly) "all you noise freaks are on crack" :) or something. Yes there's noise. No there's not too much. It's the same as a 100B (which is lower than a 100A!) It's the same as the XLH1.

If you don't like any noise at all, your only choice is the Sony. It's the only one out there with less noise than the HVX.

[spencer]

I'm more worried about the state of the footage itself. I'm assuming it was in 24P and in one of the cinegamma things or Cine-Like, right? For some reason, the "filmic" quality didn't look as good as I have seen with DVX footage.

Can this be changed to better look like the DVX stuff I've seen?

And I know there are a lot of variables to account for, but any answer would be nice, thanks.

[Barry_Green]

When handled like a DVX, it produces DVX-like results. It looks basically exactly like the DVX, but with 3 to 4 times as much resolution.

[Lenilenapi]

How can you tell what the "filmic" quality of a piece is when you are looking at it thru web compression at a drastically reduced framer rate? ( At least when I saw it , it had a very low frame rate.)

[Danilo Del Tufo]

I again reiterate -- the HVX has the same amount of noise as a DVX100B. It has more noise than the Sony, less noise than the JVC, and the same noise as an XLH1. It is not noise-free. Neither is the DVX. Neither is the Canon. Its pictures look fantastic. Look back on the basketball footage, or the desert footage, or the kitchen table footage.

The only thing strange Barry is that ev'ry footage I've seen from Canon was noise free, while evr'y footage from Hvx200 (except the pre-release footage) was noisy.
It's this thing that drives me crazy, for me it's more simple to be happy and buy Hvx200 that write in english here and be disappointed and worried.
Barry what you think about -3dB capability of Canon? I've read that it's the secret to low very well noise...if the Panasonic made that also for Hvx200...sniff...
I've seen so SOLID night footage from Canon, Kaku Ito's footage, without any noise...
If I live as you in America would be simple to check the camera by myself...

[Emanuel]

Thx for breaking the silence, Barry. As I said before when you are in silence it means danger! :cheesy:


the HVX has (...) less noise than the JVC, and the same noise as an XLH1.Are you sure? I wouldn't say the same regarding all the footage that I saw. Maybe if lit well but not for run & gun film-like doc work...

Well, that's why I ask & ask -- I beg for a once-for-all noise test, concerning those settings that you posted it, Barry.


Look back on the (...) kitchen table footage. What kitchen table footage.From the bar? From the same desert footage clip? If not...anyone can give me the link? (maybe @ours here in Europe a kitchen, well, it's not the same thing than yours...)


If you don't like any noise at all, your only choice is the Sony. It's the only one out there with less noise than the HVX.That was I reappreciated this possibility...one year later since HVX NAB's announcement. But if we see some of this stuff, well, it's a possibility indeed!

[Barry_Green]

The only thing strange Barry is that ev'ry footage I've seen from Canon was noise free, while evr'y footage from Hvx200 (except the pre-release footage) was noisy.
Noise-free? Seriously? Those pictures you posted from Matteo show tons of noise. Look at the comparison shots between the XLH1 and the Z1 again -- the XLH1 is sharper, but it's obviously way noisy vs. the Z1.

I'm telling you this -- I've seen the two products side by side, I've shot the same subject side by side, and I had nearly a dozen witnesses with me when we did it. The Canon and the HVX exhibit approximately the same level of noise. Until you see the same shots under the same circumstances you simply cannot compare them. Once you see the same shots under the same circumstances then you'll see what I saw, and what nearly a dozen others saw -- they're very similar in noise. They have a different noise texture, but overall quantity of noise is THE SAME.

I don't remember if that was with -3dB though. But if you want to consider -3dB on the Canon, realize that that means you'll need somewhere between twice to three times as much light for the same brightness. There are tradeoffs.


Barry what you think about -3dB capability of Canon? I've read that it's the secret to low very well noise...if the Panasonic made that also for Hvx200...sniff...
Danilo, if you don't like noise, get a Sony. That's all I can tell you. The Sony is noticeably, significantly, a LOT less noisy than the Canon or Panasonic. It just is. -3dB may help the Canon get a little less noisy, I don't remember if we had that on or not, I would tend to think not. But if it works like -3dB on the VariCam, it may mean losing dynamic range too. There is no magic potion. There is no ultimate end-all-be-all. Well, there is, but it costs money -- a VariCam or CineAlta will give you sensitivity, low noise, and sharper resolution than any of the 1/3" cameras, but you'd better be prepared to pay 10x as much for one!

[Barry_Green]

Are you sure? I wouldn't say the same regarding all the footage that I saw. Maybe if lit well but not for run & gun film-like doc work...
Shoot the same subject under the same lighting. That is the only way to tell. You simply cannot draw any conclusions from random sporadic footage clips posted by different shooters of different subjects in different lighting with different web compression! Shoot the same subject under the same lighting, and you'll see the same results that me, Jay, Adam, Nate, Aaron, Rush, and half a dozen other guys saw.

[Emanuel]

Shoot the same subject under the same lighting. That is the only way to tell. You simply cannot draw any conclusions from random sporadic footage clips posted by different shooters of different subjects in different lighting with different web compression! Shoot the same subject under the same lighting, and you'll see the same results that me, Jay, Adam, Nate, Aaron, Rush, and half a dozen other guys saw.You're RIGHT! It's fair! That's why I ask here to all if it's not possible an expertise test similar that one that you made but with footage available...

Please, will it be?

<PS> We are far away and when HVX will be available we already must have the purchase decision took it.

[Iain]

Ha! Robert Anthony Peters was one of the actors... I thought I recognized him! When I was at school in the Bay Area he was in a bunch of our school projects! :)

[Stevet]

Barry, I understand your point about loss of dynamic range when using -3dB gain, but I'm sure you'll agree there are times when we can benefit from a -3dB gain control.

For example, when the scene is lit adequate enought, but some noise trails in the shadows. It's all about what you're willing to trade at that moment.

[Barry_Green]

If you want to see what HVX noise looks like, as compared to the DVX, go look at the thread I just posted which shows an HVX200 clip and a nearly-identical DVX100B clip. Hopefully that should answer some questions.

[Barry_Green]

Barry, I understand your point about loss of dynamic range when using -3dB gain, but I'm sure you'll agree there are times when we can benefit from a -3dB gain control.

For example, when the scene is lit adequate enought, but some noise trails in the shadows. It's all about what you're willing to trade at that moment.
Oh, I totally agree, and I asked Panasonic to put -3dB on the list of features. We didn't get it, but I wish we had. I'd rather have more options than fewer!

I'm just pointing out that -3 isn't a magic fixall -- it has compromises too. It's all about knowing what it's going to cost you, and deciding if it's worth it.

[Stevet]

Oh, I totally agree, and I asked Panasonic to put -3dB on the list of features. We didn't get it, but I wish we had. I'd rather have more options than fewer!

I'm just pointing out that -3 isn't a magic fixall -- it has compromises too. It's all about knowing what it's going to cost you, and deciding if it's worth it.

Yes, I remember you brought the -3dB option up before.
Who knows, maybe if were good :), Panny will throw us an update sometime.

Steve

[Emanuel]

Danilo, if you don't like noise, get a Sony. That's all I can tell you. The Sony is noticeably, significantly, a LOT less noisy than the Canon or Panasonic.&
That was I reappreciated this possibility...one year later since HVX NAB's announcement. But if we see some of this stuff, well, it's a possibility indeed!

50i (50p for slowmotion purposes) -> 25p -> 24p
http://www.lumieremedia.com/tomorrowistoday/tomorrow_trailer/
http://dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?category=Archive&articleId=174900673
http://www.brokenarrowsthemovie.com/
http://www.vilekyle.com/Films/Ideals/index.htm
http://www.steadicams.com/
http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images.htm
http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images-Surfers.htm

Last but not least... (where's the videoish interlaced look?!...I'm just seeing a nice cinematic Lynch's character shot-like, that's all! :laugh:)

http://x4.putfile.com/1/2221444267.jpg

the credits are from Curious Raptures Productions, LLC
title: Busgirl
director: Steven Schuldt
dp: Tom Camarda
Z1U plus M2 35mm adapter
http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage/Z1U/Scene-7_Draft.mov

<PS> Ah!...and better highlights handling, too...

[Kholi]

First of all, a huge THANK YOU to Rob Weiner for posting the short (I'm still downloading)!

Kholi:

I see your point, but I really disagree. I shot my zombie short with my DVX100, and in one shot I have a KinoFlo wrapped in blue gel to create a soft blue wash over the background of the shot. This was NOT an example of a "low light" scene. That Kino was putting out about 40 footcandles or more (the Kino was on a table, washing about a two-square foot area on a wall that was just inches from the Kino source). Once that shot got compressed to MPEG-2 for DVD authoring, it was a snowstorm. Both my mom and my girlfriend, neither of which are technically astute in any way, said, "Why does that look so noisy?" If you saw the footage, I'm sure you would agree. This was not a case of something "being lit poorly." It's simply a case of a 1/3" imaging system that's unable to reproduce heavily saturated hue without a LOT of chroma noise. Remember, straight out of the camera is one thing, but we all have to eventually dub to some sort of distribution medium, and at this time, it's typically a DVD or VHS tape. Once you compress to MPEG-2, or dub to VHS, any noise in the picture becomes multiplied several-fold.

Maybe this example states the case even more plainly . . . VHS sucks, right? Well, any commercially duplicated VHS movie will have LESS noise than anything I've ever shot on a 1/3" camera--and that's simply not acceptable. And this is footage shot in broad daylight, at f/11 or greater, at 0dB.

Again, I do see your point. I mean what can you expect from a sub-$10,000 camera anyway? However, I've examined HVX images for a total of about six hours between DV Expo West and RESfest L.A. on both HD CRTs and HD LCD displays and it was difficult to determine what the noise levels were. I just went down to Birns & Sawyer's new location this afternoon to check out an HVX, but to no avail. They were prepping one package to go out on a rental, and the other was in rental inventory. No one was available to demo the camera, and apparently, they only have two. And by the way, the day rate on the HVX rental there was $450/day. I did see the Canon XL-H1 on display. I pointed the H1 at a translight that had a New York skyline with a twilight blue sky image on it. At least on the LCD display, the blue portion of the translight was very noisy.

Last week, I happened to shoot some very cool footage at work with a Sony BVW400A analog BetacamSP camera, and did a composite dub to miniDV. You know what? No noise. I mean ZERO noise. This, coming from a 10-year-old analog camera, recording to an even older analog format, with no TBC, using a plain ole' COMPOSITE video BNC-to-RCA cable! I've decided that there's only so much that can be expected from a 1/3" system. I'm now pretty dead set on getting the Sony PDW-F330 1/2" XDCAM HD when it comes out.

Hey, sorry about that. To tell you the truth, I spoke sooner than I should have. I usually get the chance to see all of this footage on great displays... and I looked at this one on a PC monitor and it really didn't seem as bad as everyone was saying.

Then, I ported it over on a jump-drive and whoa... just... whoa. It was grotesque. Even if that's web compression, that just won't fly.

Apologies to any and everyone. That was VERY noisey... I wasn't kidding when I said that it made my skin crawl.

As for Birns and Sawyer-- I know. Damn, I was trying to rent the HVX200 AND the XLH1 from the same place, but they're plum out for rental. We're getting the XLH1 from Birns and Sawyer, but we'll have to go elsewhere for the HVX200. Paying 450 a day isn't a problem, it's just getting the damned thing. That's fine though, because we'll get a chance to see how two different houses take care of their camera equipment.

We do plan on purchasing two of either camera when we know which one best suits us.

I just wish I could get them both from the same rental house instead of driving to two different locales.

[Kholi]

wtf double post??

[Danilo Del Tufo]

Ah!...and better highlights handling, too...

Sony cameras seem produce amazing footage, if we considering too Macgregor's footage with G35 adapter on it...:thumbsup:

[Emanuel]

Emmanuel, I've used both an FX and Z1, they suck! Please stop bringing up those darned home video cameras.If you will explain me why these suck...

[Ralph Oshiro]

The only thing strange Barry is that ev'ry footage I've seen from Canon was noise free, while evr'y footage from Hvx200 (except the pre-release footage) was noisy.What Canon XL-H1 footage are you talking about? Are you talking about the H1 footage shot with a full HMI grip/lighting package and a Technocrane (or whatever they had), that streamed the HD-SDI output of the H1 to a D5 deck? (The footage of the guy on the bicycle riding through "Quaintsville, USA") You mean THAT footage? Talk about "putting on the dog." That Canon footage was THE most "produced" demo footage I had EVER seen! IMO, showing HD-SDI D5 footage as a "demo" of a $9,000 HDV camera is bordering on gross misrepresentation.

[Kholi]

What Canon XL-H1 footage are you talking about? Are you talking about the H1 footage shot with a full HMI grip/lighting package and a Technocrane (or whatever they had), that streamed the HD-SDI output of the H1 to a D5 deck? (The footage of the guy on the bicycle riding through "Quaintsville, USA") You mean THAT footage? Talk about "putting on the dog." That Canon footage was THE most "produced" demo footage I had EVER seen! IMO, showing HD-SDI D5 footage as a "demo" of a $9,000 camera is bordering on gross misrepresentation.

Yes... though I'd love to see that footage. =DDD

[Stevet]

IMO, showing HD-SDI D5 footage as a "demo" of a $9,000 camera is bordering on gross misrepresentation.

Hehehe...

I thought the same thing.

[Danilo Del Tufo]

What Canon XL-H1 footage are you talking about? .

Kaku Ito's footage at Dvinfo.:undecided

[Ralph Oshiro]

Oh. Nevermind then.

[Danilo Del Tufo]

The Ultimate Challenge from Kaku:
He has attached the Hvx200 on his bike, turning it in a "BMX200".
I'm waiting for the LAST ULTIMATE CHALLENGE:
He will install permanently Hvx200 is his head to avoid noise...LOL

[Zig_Zigman]

robweiner

I notice you used B. Raffi in your short.....I've directed him before.

This cam looks just like the DVX, except better.

[Emanuel]

Well, well...robweiner...world's premiere for the first ever HVX movie. In 48 hours?!... CONGRATS! Is it necessary to say something more?

Now, after the download and the reading of all these posts again, I can say: Houston we have a problem!

Great colors, latitude, cinematic look, indeed! The $10,000 best choice...but frankly WITH a big handicap that we already know enough (noise -- to the fresh ones if there is who).

How to solve this if we want to go for a 35mm film-out or even for a simple MPEG-2 DVD delivery?

Again & again, the same request:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=43940

<PS> With REAL footage for once and by now; not more charts or similar stuff, please!

[Danilo Del Tufo]

Oh dear Emanuel you're came back! I must go to sleep soon! Go here, if you didn't yet see new footage :http://homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton
New Canon Xl H1 footage (Sundance footage h264, girl of my dreams included:)) and San Diego footage.

Cheers:)

[Kholi]

Oh dear Emanuel you're come back! I must to go to sleep soon! Go here if you didn't yet see:http://homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton
New Canon Xl H1 footage (Sundance footage h264, girl of my dream included:)) and San Diego footage.

Cheers:)

Don't go starting HVX/XLH1 wars... hehe.

I love the footage, as well. But, the people must decide for themselves.

I think both cameras are going to end up being one hell of a deal. It's just all in what fits either person's budget/workflow.

Have at it.

[Emanuel]

Yup caro Danilo! Grazie!

Sono qui è ho gia visto quello che il nostro Master ha lasciato per noi...


And...love you for your help and care! I must send you another gift via e-mail soon! :)
Barry for president! But....hey he's already a sort of president here...LOL
So go away Bush! We want Barry Green!:) LINK (http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showpost.php?p=413298&postcount=20) Per Presidente, sicuro!...

:thumbup: Mio voto! :thumbsup:

:kiss:

:laugh:

[Danilo Del Tufo]

I've not still thank you for the homage signature! :)
When I see it "I'm brand agnostic as Emanuel" I think myself as cute-little robot that repeat into a loop "I'm brand agnostic as Emanuel!:)I'm brand agnostic as Emanuel!:)I'm brand agnostic as Emanuel!:)".

LoL! Just Cute I am! :embarasse

[Justyn]

This noise at low light issue is nonsense. Everything in low-light is going to give you noise or grain. 500ASA film is awefully noisy. So, that's why we have lights to turn on... and also cameras with nightvision if you are in no light.. I'd say that bedroom stuff just looked flat and available light with little latitude.. but not terrible. Reality maybe!

And why does this Canon and no noise get brought up so much? Seems like that's the only point I have heard as an advantage.. and not really that.. just in deference to the Panny. Canon people seem to have a bit of a Napoleon complex over this whole camera war. I would say so... with muted and drab looking footage like that Sundance footage. Doesn't have what I'm looking for in a camera, but it keeps gettig brought up on these threads. However, I don't know anyone who has bought one.. or a dealer (out of the three that I know) who has sold one. I'm a canon video guy since XL1 first series days.. and doesn't see the excitment and interest that there was with that XL1. Just hard to justify something that shoots to mini DV.. with no variable framerates... a floating zoom lens.. and an aweful eyepiece. Good thing it's so heavy.. make a great fishing anchor. And at almost 4K more... a nice pricey one

Also, why is this going on... on this forum board. Reeks of brand jealously. Maybe it's also that the canon watchdog site and other canon forums are full of the sounds of crickets.

[Emanuel]

This noise at low light issue is nonsense. Everything in low-light is going to give you noise or grain. Not all...not all...

Sorry, I even figure out your point but it's not so black & white. Unfortunately or I must say :thumbsup: by fortune?... or :evil: maybe not so by fortune... :engel017:

[Kholi]

This noise at low light issue is nonsense. Everything in low-light is going to give you noise or grain. 500ASA film is awefully noisy. So, that's why we have lights to turn on... and also cameras with nightvision if you are in no light.. I'd say that bedroom stuff just looked flat and available light with little latitude.. but not terrible. Reality maybe!

And why does this Canon and no noise get brought up so much? Seems like that's the only point I have heard as an advantage.. and not really that.. just in deference to the Panny. Canon people seem to have a bit of a Napoleon complex over this whole camera war. I would say so... with muted and drab looking footage like that Sundance footage. Doesn't have what I'm looking for in a camera, but it keeps gettig brought up on these threads. However, I don't know anyone who has bought one.. or a dealer (out of the three that I know) who has sold one. I'm a canon video guy since XL1 first series days.. and doesn't see the excitment and interest that there was with that XL1. Just hard to justify something that shoots to mini DV.. with no variable framerates... a floating zoom lens.. and an aweful eyepiece. Good thing it's so heavy.. make a great fishing anchor. And at almost 4K more... a nice pricey one

Also, why is this going on... on this forum board. Reeks of brand jealously. Maybe it's also that the canon watchdog site and other canon forums are full of the sounds of crickets.

Post modified.

I hope you have something worthy of EITHER camera, fella. Seriously.

[esperman]

wow...12 pages of people complaining about webcompressed footage?
WTF??
If your getting into HD, learn how to light.....regardless of camera. And don't jump over people who post footage in a form that you can easily view. Video compressed for web delievry sucks....keep that in mind.

[BrandonC]

You are all crazy...the wmv file I watched looked great!
Super clear, didn't notice any noise...

Maybe I need to view it on another monitor or something?

[Emanuel]

wow...12 pages of people complaining about webcompressed footage?
WTF?? (...) And don't jump over people who post footage in a form that you can easily view. Video compressed for web delievry sucks....keep that in mind.Well, considering that you have HVX native footage, I'd say that's good news?!...


If your getting into HD, learn how to light.....regardless of camera.Run & gun doc work...it's not the same than a feature set, right?

[Emanuel]

You are all crazy...the wmv file I watched looked great!
Super clear, didn't notice any noise...

Maybe I need to view it on another monitor or something?Or we are all crazy -- yup! Or you saw other file...

My last hope: DVCPRO-HD is not the best codec to web delivery but will it be OK to 35mm film-out purposes after a decent post-production work? What's your bet?

LAST last hope: noisy settings LINK (http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=43940)

[Rodrigo]

emanuel, me too believes that you are exaggerating the noise issue... I don't think the pana is noisy at all

[Barry_Green]

You are definitely exaggerating the noise issue; the Panasonic is about equivalent in noise to the Canon and lower in noise than the JVC.

[Norm_Li]

This is nuts! 12 pages... don't judge your purchase on this camera based on amateur looking footage.

[Jim Arthurs]

For fun, I took the WM9 and made a nice 24p SD-DVD out of the film... even coming from the uber-compressed WM9 it made a very nice looking DVD (on the well lit shots, that is) with little noise (again, on the well exposed shots). All the slight off-focus shots are down-sampled into sharpness when viewed on the small screen, and even the strobing end credits seem less to exhibit less strobe.

I'd be very happy with DVD end product that can look like that when treated well.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

[Stevet]

For fun, I took the WM9 and made a nice 24p SD-DVD out of the film... even coming from the uber-compressed WM9 it made a very nice looking DVD

Just imagine how well it would of done if not recompressed to wmv first.

Thanks Jim

[holyzoo]

I'm arriving late to this thread, but I wanted to say that I think this is an awesome example of the potential of the HVX200. Regarding all the *NOISE OH MY GOD*, look at the video again at half size. The data rate for 1280x720 is WAY low at 3Mbs. Way too low to avoid artifacts from hell.

Awesome job!! Brillant colors and skilled lighting etc etc.

[Emanuel]

emanuel, me too believes that you are exaggerating the noise issue... I don't think the pana is noisy at all&
You are definitely exaggerating the noise issue; the Panasonic is about equivalent in noise to the Canon and lower in noise than the JVC.I'd like too. My problem with the images that I had possibility to watch is that chroma noise (I can even follow that it's necessary if we want to have those nice filmic colors such as we find in this cam and give us unique skin tones, for instance) comparatively other noises (JVC or Canon -- more luma, however, near by film grainy, at least IMHO).

My hope -- posts like this one from Steev:
Regarding all the *NOISE OH MY GOD*, look at the video again at half size. The data rate for 1280x720 is WAY low at 3Mbs. Way too low to avoid artifacts from hell.Or as I said, perhaps DVCPRO-HD can handle natively quite different (and the matter just can be that it's not the best codec to web delivery or straight compression).

My second hope -- those settings that I've seen until now, it is yet far away from the REAL HVX performance. Is there anyone that can to try the settings that you post to us, Barry? LINK (http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=43940)

[mochouinard]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521044027821122670

I hope that wasn't shot with the HVX, but I like the generic ;)

[Justyn]

I certainly hope so too. I have in the past, but maybe I'll just shoot video of a guy taking a crap.. and then have it say.. taking a crap in HD. How's that? Whatever I aim to do just fine. I've won my awards already, been screwed by Holywood, and now it's all just for me. Whatever I want to do. that Im passionate about, is what I do and I hope that others like it as well.





Post modified.

I hope you have something worthy of EITHER camera, fella. Seriously.

[Justyn]

I love the ambiguity and the elevated position you take on these posts. What cameras don't give you noise or grain under bad lighting? Maybe you are blessed and God lights your scenes.. in between all of the funny faces you seem to love.


Not all...not all...

Sorry, I even figure out your point but it's not so black & white. Unfortunately or I must say :thumbsup: by fortune?... or :evil: maybe not so by fortune... :engel017:

[holyzoo]

Example of how 720p should be web compressed:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/subtleness_QT7_1280x720_10M.mov

p.s. This is compressed from raw HVX200 footage.

[Stevet]

Thanks Steev,
It looks good, nice detail too.

Steve

[Emanuel]

You are wrong, my fellow...regarding low lighting and not bad lighting (or any low lighting does it mean bad photography/cinematography?...are you sure?! Really?...), as well, your POV about a person that you REALLY don't know... At least, I use to ask first.

It seems to me a déjà vu or am I wrong?
I love the ambiguity and the elevated position you take on these posts. What cameras don't give you noise or grain under bad lighting? Maybe you are blessed and God lights your scenes.. in between all of the funny faces you seem to love.
Not all...not all...

Sorry, I even figure out your point but it's not so black & white. Unfortunately or I must say :thumbsup: by fortune?... or :evil: maybe not so by fortune... :engel017:
This noise at low light issue is nonsense. Everything in low-light is going to give you noise or grain.

[Knock Out Films]

Example of how 720p should be web compressed:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/subtleness_QT7_1280x720_10M.mov

p.s. This is compressed from raw HVX200 footage.

Okay WTF. That clip looked fantastic. ZERO noise. I have kept silent over the noise issue, even though it scared the crap out of me. I HATE noise. It is by far the least attractive thing about video. I know that even Hollywood DVDs have noise, but in my mind I know that's it's the mpeg2 encoding.

The clip from holyzoo looks really good. I like to shoot with lots of shadows and that clip had plenty. The blacks had zero noise. The bedroom stuff in the 48hr short looked like it was gained on the day.

The only thing with the holyzoo clip is the slight stutter on the move. Was the shutter at 1/24? I personally don't like using 1/24 on the DVX, it seemed to slur a bit too much for me. I like it just a bit quicker. Maybe it will be the same for the HVX. I know most film cameras shoot at 1/24 but for some reason you don't see the blur as much as in video at the same shutter speed.

That clip certainly makes me feel better.

Cheers,
Chris

[Emanuel]

At least, we are already two...let's wait and see! Thanks Steev! Do you have other examples?

[Stevet]

Also look at the color of the leaves not to mention the "HD" vibe, looks good to me.

[thefilmaddict]

Holyzoo,
That looks much better! Thanks.

Originally Posted by holyzoo:
Example of how 720p should be web compressed:
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx20...80x720_10M.mov
p.s. This is compressed from raw HVX200 footage.

[holyzoo]

That was a clip from Kaku in Japan who has been *the* top guy to post HVX200 footage. You can view a LOT more at the following site, and not just web compressed, we're talkin raw footage.

http://www.xtream.ne.jp/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,63/Itemid,68/

[Emanuel]

Thanks Steev! But do you remember that problem with us@PC_side?

It's sad but all the footage that I could see is unfortunately non-native, not even m2t like the Kaku's XL-H1 previous ones...

[holyzoo]

Thanks Steev! But do you remember that problem with us@PC_side?

It's sad but all the footage that I could see is unfortunately non-native, not even m2t like the Kaku's XL-H1 previous ones...

Oh yeah, now I remember. I hadn't reallized that a lot of this stuff has been unseen. There are a LOT of examples of low noise in dark environments. It has made me realize that the noise you have all seen is from +Gain in the camera. :O Man, talk about mass panic over nuthin.

[Emanuel]

Yup!...but if you can help us with other examples of low noise in dark footage@0db it would be gold...

...would it be possible?

...'cause we are in Europe and maybe only to March/April we will have a hands-on approach...

...there is also a problem with raising decision that we must take/make in order to any investment to 2006 (March/April is already 2Q, so maybe to 2007 investments...); if you can help us...can you?

[holyzoo]

Here ya go.

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/taxirideinsnow_QT7_1280x720.mov

This is another low light dark example with not much noise, clearly not an offending amount. Keep in mind this is about a quarter of the data rate of DVCPRO HD.

[Emanuel]

Thank you very much Steev! By now, I'm@dial-up but tonight here@gmt I will be@broadband. If you can post others it will be always so much appreciated. Thanks again for the help. Europe is a little bit out of the HVX launchment circuit by now and all of your posts are very hopeful. I can even confess that I have a files folder@my PC with your name for your relevant and useful posts. :thumbsup:

[Mr. Blonde]

Looks awesome Holy. So how you feelin about the cam?

[Emanuel]

Great stuff Steev! I'm grateful. Well, I have a problem. I need to have a purchase decision not only regarding two units but also for to several pieces of equipment, new NLE, etc. I'm not alone. We are three partners more three patrons that come silent around here and give me the echo of their opinions. Until now not so favourable to our HVX. Unfortunately. And we cannot to loose this HD timing. I have some projects that are waiting but it's impossible to delay more than one year, since last NAB.

That's why I must need answers before the HVX arrival here and my decision is not a sole one. I beg you to you Steev if you can help us with more clips like these. You are right! We need for examples of how 1080p or 720p should be web compressed from raw DVCPRO-HD native where the data rate is a decisive factor.

Because we tried to download the Kaku's Mac files and to transfer them to PC side without the same results than you have. Why? I don't know! They told me that's the quicktime codec. Well, to me it's the same. I just need some clips with an acceptable level of noise like this one in order to convince my partners to HVX direction. We will test it@film-out, probably. But we must choose a maximum of only 3/4 cams to it:

[options]
Z1U
HD100
HVX
XL-H1
F330
Infinity
HD7000 if available

My love? Well, that one that give us the best image to our purposes. But concerning the specifications and all the time here@yours, I'd like for a HVX purchase -- handheld as I like it.

Is it possible your help once more?

Thanks in advance!

<PS> As I said, your work@here it's so much appreciated. One sole example? Dan's MPIC stuff.

[holyzoo]

Again this is not my footage. I've just converted a couple of clips from raw DVCPRO HD to H.264. The footage is from Kaku in Japan.

http://www.xtream.ne.jp/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,63/Itemid,68/

But when I get mine this Thursday or Friday I'll be posting a bunch of stuff. ;) Can't wait!!

[holyzoo]

I just need some clips with an acceptable level of noise like this one in order to convince my parrtners to HVX direction. Is it possible your help once more?

Thanks in advance!

<PS> As I said, your work@here it's so much appreciated. One sole example? Dan's MPIC stuff.

Thanks for the kudos. I'm glad this is helping, because I've had a hell of a time deciding on things, myself.

I'll encode a few more and post.

[Danilo Del Tufo]

anyone has P2 reader? I can't download, Pal Land a not serial number required, so I can't see Mxf files of Kaku on pc...if anyone has this free software please help...thanks

[Emanuel]

Thanks for the kudos. I'm glad this is helpingA LOT!


Again this is not my footage. I've just converted a couple of clips from raw DVCPRO HD to H.264. The footage is from Kaku in Japan.

http://www.xtream.ne.jp/component/op...,63/Itemid,68/Yeah! We know! The question is I have confidence in your skills regarding the handling of the conversions and, unfortunately, I cannot to say the same about all the HVX footage that we saw.


But when I get mine this Thursday or Friday I'll be posting a bunch of stuff. ;) Can't wait!! (...) I'll encode a few more and post.I'm glad and so much grateful, I'll be waiting Steev!

BTW, I follow your DVCPRO-HD vs. HDV comparisions...so much hopeful your research and the way that you explained your POV about the subject. One word (again): USEFUL

[Emanuel]

anyone has P2 reader? I can't download, Pal Land a not serial number required, so I can't see Mxf files of Kaku on pc...if anyone has this free software please help...thanks[If not yet] Download it these Steev's conversions and run with VLC media player or quicktime for PC.

Ciao!

[holyzoo]

Two more:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/HVXbamboo108_QT7_1280x720.mov

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/HVXdarkshowcas_QT7_1280x720.mov

and a few more will be up soon:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/HVX200carspass_QT7_1280x720.mov

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/0035RZ_QT7_1280x720_10Mbs.mov

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/HVXgirlrunning_QT7_1280x720.mov

I will for sure put one more up - the Singertest clip. And maybe five more total 10 hours from now. Gotta get some sleep here.

[Emanuel]

Two more:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/HVXbamboo108_QT7_1280x720.mov

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/HVXdarkshowcas_QT7_1280x720.mov

and a few more will be up soon:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/HVX200carspass_QT7_1280x720.mov

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/0035RZ_QT7_1280x720_10Mbs.mov

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/HVXgirlrunning_QT7_1280x720.mov

I will for sure put one more up - the Singertest clip.Thank you very much, Steev! :happy:
And maybe five more total 10 hours from now. Gotta get some sleep here.OK! We'll be waiting!

Sleep well! Cheers! :beer:
Emanuel

[holyzoo]

Alright, here's the whole folder if you haven't already started peeking around:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/video/

I'll have to check my bandwidth, but I don't think it's going to hurt much. These files are short clips at 10Mbs. The entire folder is no more than 221MB total. :D Thank God for H.264.

[holyzoo]

One more note. I think the Singertest clip was a recompress to DVCPRO HD, and then my encode to a quarter of the data rate at 10Mbs. It holds up mighty well. I'd like to do some tests to see how HDV holds up doing the same (HDV Acquire, HDV export, H.264 encode). I wouldn't be too optimistic since I've already seen pretty bad results from a 2nd encode on previously encoded Mpeg2.

Example - http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/blowout/HDV_Second_Pass_Destruction.jpg

I think it's clear that it's pretty crucial to deal with HDV in an intermediate codec or natively and then master to uncompressed, before a final encode. I would recommend this for HVX200 acquired footage as well, but not as crucial.

For instance, HVX200 review edits and dailies could be rendered in DVCPRO HD to save space, a LOT less than uncompressed, then exported to H.264 and look pretty decent, without fear of complex scenes or high motion scenes getting destroyed and obliterated. I'd still like to work with an XL-H1 someday, but all of this makes the HVX200 a clear choice as my main camera to me.

[Stevet]

Thanks Steev !

[P!body]

Cool man, I'm downloading now. Can't wait to see it.

[gregcotten]

--------------------[Removed by user]-----------------